Hey Celeste,The fossil magnetic record is not quite as solid as you seem to think. First the evidence for magnetic pole "wandering" is not consistent from location to location, continent to continent as the standard view might wishfully present. This strongly suggests that continental drift was a more likely culprit in producing the shifting magnetic orientations rather than magnetic pole wandering, ie. that the drift scenarios were not as "linear" as they are often simplistically depicted on oval or mercator style projections. For example, the original continent may have been more tropically located and centrifugally the drifting continental "shards" headed somewhat northward as they separated.The "reversal" stripes discovered in the late 60's along mid-ocean rifts are due to their high degree of symmetry good indicators of seafloor spreading and by direct inference classical continental drift. However there is another explanation [based on the catastrophic rapid drift paradigm] that precludes the possibility of magnetic polar reversal. The orientations of iron crystals in molten, semi-molten and relatively hardened magmas/lavas would naturally reverse when deposited sequentially over a short time period [say months(?) as opposed to SM's 100-thousands of years periods], due to simple magnetic juxtaposition. Precession is not the same as reversal. The earth's axis is physically precessing on a period of 40,000 yrs or so, which is imo likely due to the same event or event series that initiated the split up of the original supercontinent, ie. a close encounter with a large celestial body, attended by several dozens of major impact events. From a catastrophist pov, this also explains why all fossil records prior to the glacial period show a global greenhouse, and that our tilt-based seasons were emplaced subsequent to that "pleistocene" time, a tangent from the magnetic reversal theme of the OP. All that said, I do not speak for the EU; my views are the result of my few decades [since 1973] of research into catastrophic implications of the geologic history of the earth. While I share some views of other EU frequenters, I disagree with quite a few others, friends all hopefully.

Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

And then how do you deal with the fact that ancient records point to Earth's North pole in Canopus? This is the issue: Either we say that all the ancient records were " made up", or we can accept that stars near the South ecliptic pole were in fact visible from Earth's North geophysical pole.

This is not merely a magnetic pole shift (as we see on the sun), but an actual physical pole shift, that is being recorded.

This comes up in the Native American mythology as well. Earth wobbles in a crazy way, and then the Sun rises where it once set. This is also in the Cayce material (for those of you willing to consider it), and spelled out in the Hopi legends, etc.

At any rate, the axis about which Earth's pole appears to precess, has been recorded since ancient times. ALL ancient records show, that the axis about which Earth precesses, has shown a very gradual change over time. NO records ever of Earth's North pole pointing to anything along the current ecliptic plane.

Again, change the focus from purely solar system dynamics ( as in which planet the Earth's pole faces), and focus on background stars, and you are forced to the conclusion that Earth's north geophysical pole was in fact pointing to stars now only visible from Earth's Southern hemisphere.

celeste,

I was, of course, referring to the Earth’s magnetic field. Magnetic anomalies are a record of catastrophe and not due to an imaginary bar-magnet at the centre of the Earth flipping over; I have not discounted any movement of Earth’s rotational axis.

As a matter of interest are you familiar with Peter Warlow's Tippe-Top theory?

If the oceans were gouged out by Birkeland Currents then it is not hard to see lines of gouging which may have a different magnetic signature. And later if the Americas were pulled away from Europe and Africa during an interaction with another planet then lava-type material could have entered these gouges and solidifed with a different magnetic signature. Either way no magnetic reversals.

One should note that this implies that the Earth's magnetic field is a remanent field and is thus slowly decaying as measurements show.Cheers, Mo

The evidence of magnetic pole flips is the derived from the geological column. When a rock is molten and then cooled the ambient magnetic field is imprinted in the now hardened rock. Various layers of the column display changing polarities, indicating the magnetic poles have had numerous reversals.The issue then is how long ago and by what means was the geologic column formed:-Uniformitarianism. The consensus of mainstream Geologists is that the forces we see in action today and applied in the same degree as we see today created the geologic column; erosion by wind and water, tectonic activity, local flooding, and the slow deposition of material.-Catastrophism, which is the position of the EU, discards the uniformitarian assumption realizing that the Earth has been exposed to forces and conditions (especially but not exclusively - electrical) of a magnitude which we do not experience today.

As far as magnetic reversals are concerned, both positions agree that they have occurred, but the difference is in the when and how.

The EU postulates that in the not so distant geologic past the Earth was in much closer proximity to other planetary objects. Celestial objects are charged bodies. As Wal Thornhill has stated, these charged bodies (planets) are surrounded by a plasmasphere and when the plasmasphere of one infringes upon the plasmasphere of another the two planets in effect now "see" each other. That is, they are contact and will exchange an electrical discharge.As far as I know, Velikovsky was the first to propose that this process, as applied to celestial bodies, would result in a magnetic reversal. In Worlds In Collision, 1950, p.114 he wrote:

The Reversed Polarity of the Earth

A thunderbolt, on striking a magnet, reverses the poles of the magnet. The terrestrial globe is a huge magnet. The short circuit between it another celestial body could result in the north and south magnetic poles of the earth exchanging places.

I have read the original 1963 paper by Vine and Matthews, I can’t emphasise it enough- prior to their paper no “reversals” existed they were simply “anomalies”. In one sentence we went from an anomaly to a reversal, here it is again: “Two comparatively isolated volcano-like features were singled out and considered in detail. One has an associated negative anomaly as one would expect for normal magnetization, the other, completely the reverse anomaly pattern, that is, a pronounced positive anomaly suggesting reversed magnetization.”

“Reversals” are not what consensus geology tells the public on the National Geographic channel- usually with accompanying special effects. Electrical Universe proponents should be wary of mainstream geology’s certitudes.

Juergens went on to highlight the catastrophic nature of “reversals”: “We have seen that a close look turns up little, if any, evidence from the sea bottoms pointing to geomagnetic reversals, and none at all for sea-floor spreading. To the contrary, patterns of rock magnetism beneath the oceans point to global upheaval and turmoil.”

And as I wrote: “…yet only two years earlier (i.e. before the Vine and Matthews paper) “…Arthur Raff favoured an explanation according to which "the strongly positive anomalies are produced by ribbons of highly magnetic, volcanic basalt that flowed into previously formed channels and solidified. [Of all the models considered,] the strips of solidified lava seem to us the most likely." Earlier in his article he had noted that "the right pattern of stress," even without a flow of molten rock, might explain the lineated anomalies, "since the magnetization of rocks varies under stress." But he rejected this piezo-magnetic explanation, characterizing the necessary forces as "highly unusual and unlikely." Nevertheless, he reasoned that the lineations must reflect "some sort of ridged or striated pattern in the crustal rock, obscured by overlying sediment." He added that the magnetic anomaly maps bear "a striking resemblance to the patterns that appear in Bakelite and Lucite when they are placed under stress. This suggests that the present structure is the fossil record of ancient stresses."”

The initial catastrophic interpretation was deliberately rejected in favour of a uniformitarian one- a decision which fitted nicely with the emerging New Global Tectonics paradigm.

What happens when two planets get close is that they tend to flip to allow a current to run N-S - N-S. EU are not into this because they want to preserve the the tilts of Earth, Mars, Saturn for evidence of a previous Saturn System. But that really restricts one's thinking.

There is good evidence that Mars had a different tilt and also Earth. Trying to avoid this evidence restricts one's thinking. I am very surprised that EU has magnetic reversals.

The standard model of magnetic pole reversal is premised upon the model of a Faraday disk dynamo. To get such large dynamo that allegedly produces earth's magnetic field to reverse requires the mathematical substitution of imaginary numbers to make the equations "work". From the standpoint of a math teacher, I find this to be quite fantastic. A fantasy. Not physically tenable. Roughly symmetrical magnetic reversal patterns are found in the strata parallel and adjacent to rift zones, notably the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. From the standpoint of a catastrophist, is is hardly feasible for these [roughly] oppositely oriented magnetic zones to be due to polar reversal; rather due to local magnetism affecting impinging sheets of magma erupting from the rift.

Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Have you ever played water polo or some other game in water involving a soccer size rubber ball and seen the ball land on the water spinning rapidly, and, as it slows down, suddenly flip over, still spinning but just turn over, maybe more than once. As a gyroscope mounted in a gymbal precesses it will flip over as it slows, as will a gyroscope suspended on a string or pedestal occasionally suddenly move its rotational axis and axis of gyration to a new location. I think the phenomenon is related to distribution of imbalance in the spinning object, ball or gyroscope wheel.

I have wondered about this, but I can't determine any way for a gyroscope to flip.The ball spinning in water creates a counter force (a la Newton's 3rd) and wave action that messes with the angular momentum of the ball. The spinning earth is a gyroscope in space. What I have thought about is precession. The striping magnetics of rift zones are mostly not exactly opposite orientations, so dynamo-like spin reversal is not necessarily invoked. It seems likely that a Velikovskian planetary intruder in a close pass-by could knock the earth off its spin axis temporarily, causing a decaying precession as we currently see; the effects of that possibly being the geologic catastrophe of rending the earth's crust [seafloor spreading, continental drift] and the magnetic response of the erupting magmas. I find this a little further fetched than the simpler explanation of local magnetic field interactions/orientations in the impinging/overlying lava sheets themselves, but it is conceivable. I generally invoke the planetary interaction in any case.

Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Moses,Maybe I am misunderstanding, but I don't see that a reversal of the planetary magnetic field would require a change in the axial tilt. It seems to me that it is possible for one to change without changing the other. Aren't they two separate phenomena?

Robertus Maximus,As you are probably aware there is intriguing Archaeological evidence (in contrast to chronology derived from the geological column) that the last magnetic reversal was in the 1st Millennium BCE at circa -800. from Earth In Upheaval (1955) pp 145-147

The next question, then is: When was the terrestrial magnetic field reversed for the last time?Most interesting is the discovery that the last time the reversal of the magnetic field took place was in the eighth century before the present era [.....]The observation was made on clay fired kilns by the Etruscans and Greeks [.....]The position of the ancient vases during firing is known. They were fired in the standing position, as the flow of the glaze testifies. The magnetic inclination or the magnetic dip of the iron particles in the fired clay indicates which was the nearest magnetic pole, the south or north.In 1896 Giuseppe Fogheraiter began his careful studies of Attic (Greek) and Etruscan vases of various centuries, starting with the eighth century before the present era. His conclusion was that in the eighth century the Earth's magnetic field was inverted in Italy and Greece. Italy and Greece were closer to the south than to the north magnetic pole....These researches, continued and described in a series of papers by Professor Mercanton, presently with the Service Meteorologique Universitaire in Lausanne, show that the magnetic field of the earth, not very different than what it is today, was disturbed sometime during or immediately following the eighth century to the extent of a complete reversal.

webolife wrote:I have wondered about this, but I can't determine any way for a gyroscope to flip.The ball spinning in water creates a counter force (a la Newton's 3rd) and wave action that messes with the angular momentum of the ball. The spinning earth is a gyroscope in space. What I have thought about is precession. The striping magnetics of rift zones are mostly not exactly opposite orientations, so dynamo-like spin reversal is not necessarily invoked. It seems likely that a Velikovskian planetary intruder in a close pass-by could knock the earth off its spin axis temporarily, causing a decaying precession as we currently see; the effects of that possibly being the geologic catastrophe of rending the earth's crust [seafloor spreading, continental drift] and the magnetic response of the erupting magmas. I find this a little further fetched than the simpler explanation of local magnetic field interactions/orientations in the impinging/overlying lava sheets themselves, but it is conceivable. I generally invoke the planetary interaction in any case.

The gyroscope I refer to is the '40s-'50s era toy that has a diecast wheel about 3" diameter and plain bearings, just the point on the end of the shaft in a hole in the wire hoop. I remember my father's advice to use graphite lock lubricant to get a longer spin time. Those toys would change their axis suddenly from one orientation to another a few times as they slow down. I don't recall ever seeing a precision gyroscope do this.

Nick, if you put two bar magnets on strings such that their north pole face the same direction and then bring them close together, then they will tend to turn so that the north pole of one faces the opposite direction as the north pole of the other. This is surely what will happen when two planets come close and a current will flow in a loop N-S to N-S and back to N again.

During such an planetary interaction the magnetic field on the Earth's surface may change considerably which would account for the vase magnet inclination. The whole Earth magnetic field might be altered too. However this is just a special case and is not involved in the theory of regular magnetic reversals which would have occurred in the previous planetary configuration.

It is worth noting that during such a planetary interaction the north pole of Earth could move through the Earth's surface and there is good evidence of a 30 degree shift in such a manner. Putting this effect together with the electrical-magnetic effect this completely negates the argument that a gyroscope will tend to retain it's tilt after a disturbance.

So we should forget about the similarity in tilt of the planets as indicating a previous planetary configuration. We should also be very wary of identifying ancient planet names as being Jupiter or Mars or Saturn, etc, because there is no way that the ancients could have tracked the planets after the break-up of the previous configuration. The planets probably looked very different then than they do now or even a few years after the break up. It seems certain that there was at least one planet permanently above Earth's north pole but just what that planet was is unknown from ancient observations. Incidentally I say again that the Earth's north pole was in the Hudson Bay then.

We put far too much significance in just what that previous configuration was, when what is really significant to EU is that there was a previous configuration and electrical effects predominated from then until now.

~Both the mechanical gyroscopic and EM reversal scenarios are valid. Moses mentions an interaction of two permanent magnets, but of course they are just a special case of larger EM effects. It’s probably useful at this juncture then to take a keener look at Earth’s magnetic field.EUists are generally in agreement that electricity is the root cause of any magnetic effects, and the principle established a couple centuries ago is that “ a charge, or charged body in motion generates its own magnetic field”. That field may also be influenced by other fields that the body traverses in its motion, and/or by a change in the physical motion of the body.Taking that body to be Earth, we can look at the terrestrial magnetic traces and patterns, well described by Webolife, and see that the causes can be several and mixed, including axial precession by impending mass (Maol’s gyro, which flipped due to light mass in the outer ring), precession due to variable electric environment in and by the solar system's motions, strong external magnetic field interactions with Earth’s fields, catastrophic terrestrial discharges and probably more.

Axial precession with magnetic drift it seems, is the norm and likely inescapable, while reversals would be the extraordinary; but once a critical null-point is breached, reversal occurs. Look at nature, or an electrostatic gyro.(ESG)

Nick, if you put two bar magnets on strings such that their north pole face the same direction and then bring them close together, then they will tend to turn so that the north pole of one faces the opposite direction as the north pole of the other. This is surely what will happen when two planets come close and a current will flow in a loop N-S to N-S and back to N again.

During such an planetary interaction the magnetic field on the Earth's surface may change considerably which would account for the vase magnet inclination. The whole Earth magnetic field might be altered too. However this is just a special case and is not involved in the theory of regular magnetic reversals which would have occurred in the previous planetary configuration.

It is worth noting that during such a planetary interaction the north pole of Earth could move through the Earth's surface and there is good evidence of a 30 degree shift in such a manner. Putting this effect together with the electrical-magnetic effect this completely negates the argument that a gyroscope will tend to retain it's tilt after a disturbance.

So we should forget about the similarity in tilt of the planets as indicating a previous planetary configuration. We should also be very wary of identifying ancient planet names as being Jupiter or Mars or Saturn, etc, because there is no way that the ancients could have tracked the planets after the break-up of the previous configuration. The planets probably looked very different then than they do now or even a few years after the break up. It seems certain that there was at least one planet permanently above Earth's north pole but just what that planet was is unknown from ancient observations. Incidentally I say again that the Earth's north pole was in the Hudson Bay then.

We put far too much significance in just what that previous configuration was, when what is really significant to EU is that there was a previous configuration and electrical effects predominated from then until now.

Cheers, Mo

Understood. But the issue seems to be more complicated. The Sun flips its magnetic polarity every 11 years yet I do not think we observe any change in the orientation of the axis. So my reasoning is that a magnetic flip does not necessarily require a change in axial orientation. Perhaps there is a scenario/explanation that I am not considering but I find that the fact that the planets seemed to be in two (albeit not precise) groups of axial orientations pushes the credibility of coincidence as an explanation.

Scientists using the ESA/NASA SOHO solar observatory have found long-sought gravity modes of seismic vibration that imply the Sun's core is rotating four times faster than its surface.

This cutaway diagram shows key regions of the Sun, starting with the outer chromosphere and then the photosphere, in which cool dark features known as sunspots can be seen. Inside the Sun, there is a turbulent outer convection zone and a more stable inner radiative zone.

It would appear that In the earth, as in the Sun, the magnetic core is decoupled from the greater mass, therefor able to gyrate independently. I think the core can flip over, like the aforementioned (in previous post) gyroscope or spinning volley ball on a swimming pool surface.